Other scientists are lobbying for increased virtual conferencing.
I would have preferred that the scientists lobby for increased funding in virtual conferencing technlogies instead. I have yet to be part of a videoconference that could hold a candle to face-to-face meetings. No, I don't work in sales: I'm a scientist. I just feel that you lose an awful lot when you try to replace a meeting with a virtual one. A lot of the excited interchange that occurs in a face-to-face meething becomes a jumbled "who said that?" or "wait, did someone say something?" puzzle. I think the idea of virtual conferencing is a nice idea but still needs a lot more work before we can expect widespread adoption from scientists or businessmen. And that requires money.
The rewards of a well-developed virtual conferencing technology would go far beyond environmental concerns. By not having to spend so much time enroute to the destination (or back to your home), standing in airports, etc., people could gain back some of those "lost hours" that invariable occur during business travel. Not to mention it would save a lot of us the stress and hastle of breaking up our normal routine and enduring the growing hell of airport quagmire.
Paul Allen likes to spend his money on more "visionary" pursuits, trying to further push the technology envelope, but Gates has certainly thrown plenty of money to good causes in his own right.
There are lots of ways to look at how Gates and Allen spend their money. You pointed out one distinction. However, I'd like to go a little deeper into that and ask why.
Here's my theory: Gates has convinced himself that he's a genius. That he's smarter than almost everyone. He feels that he's the elite. This explains his attempts to so fully dominate and control the future of computing. He certainly doesn't need the money. He's doing it because he honestly feels that he knows better than anyone else how computing should evolve.
But he's not entirely heartless. He sees the poor unfortunate masses who aren't as great as he is and feels like he should give them a few bucks. Kind of like royalty flinging coins out the windows of their buggies and at the miserable wretches in the crowd as they roll down the common street. It makes him feel good about himself and, quite frankly, those who are lucky enough to catch those coins he chucks out the window really do need the money so they are grateful.
Allen, on the other hand, has a much more modest view of his place in the world. Unlike Gates, he does not believe that he's one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived. He can fully appreciate the fact that there are scores of other people out there with great ideas. Since he has the money, he funds their work in the hopes that they will be able to develop their ideas into fantastic technologies that advance the human race.
There's no right or wrong here. Both are doing what they feel is best.
I agree that Kill Bill was good. The fact that they didn't use any CGI made it significantly better, IMHO. Does anybody else feel like they're overdoing it with computer graphics in some movies??? Maybe I've just seen so many well done CGI scenes that the majority of computer aided action shots just seem lame to me.....
I'm a bit puzzled that you seem to be extolling the virtues of a wire-fu flick as a pinnacle of realism. It's been a damn long time since I've seen a believable martial arts film. The wire-fu stuff is getting as overused as CGI. Seriously, if you're in a fight you don't do 10 meter backflips over your opponents. Actually, I'm not sure anyone can do flips like that regardless of whether it makes good tactical sense or not. Yes, I'm aware the capoirera contains lots of flips and cartwheel-like motions but a lot of that is built into that particular martial art because it was developed by slaves who had to disguise their practice as a dance to avoid their masters cracking down on them.
When you do a flip you are basically expending a considerable amount of effort and energy to perform a complex maneuver that temporarily blinds you, leaves you vulnerable to your opponent, and doesn't really move your center of mass very far in the horizontal direction. It's just not a wise idea to go flipping around like crazy when people armed with weapons are trying to kill you. Best just to stand your ground and block or take a step back (or to the side).
Sometimes I wonder whether the reliance on wire techniques is an attempt by Hollywood to show something outside the everyday experience of the moviegoer in the abscence of any talented martial artists. In decades past, audiences could be wowed by the superior skill of someone who could actually do martial arts well. These days, it seems like directors are insisting that the actors try to do the fight scenes and then they use wire-fu to make up for the fact that these people really can't do very much. You don't see any Bruce Lee or Jet Li types who can move incredibly fast. Instead you get Keanu Reeves or Uma Thurman doing a backflip over 3 opponents in slow motion. That just doesn't really impress me and it certainly doesn't count as realistic fighting. Why can't they hire some competant martial arts to do something REAL and just use CGI or maybe even masks to make the stunt person look like the actor?
Ah well, just my two cents. I'm just getting a little annoyed by everyone gushing over these acrobatic shows as "awesome martial arts flicks".
I made the mistake of renting Hulk on DVD. Well, at least that wouldn't have been as big a mistake as watching it in the theater. I was pretty stunned at how terrible the CGI was. Sure, I had seen the TV commericals but I naively figured that those commericals had been thrown together before the complete rendering had been completed and that the CGI in the final product would be much better than the trailers. Nope. I was really surprised.
But in watching the DVD extras my surprise turned to bewilderment and a little anger. While there was an entertaining featurette on the history of The Hulk from early comic books to TV to movies, most of the extras consisted of the movie makers going on and on about how incredible their CGI effects were and how they were doing something at a level of realism that no one else had ever tried. Now, I'll accept that perhaps what they had tried to do might have been quite ambitious but to suggest that they succeeded admirably was just too much to take. Quite frankly, I don't care how difficult the CGI technical problems are. If some average moviegoer like myself cringes at the poor quality of the effects, then you haven't succeeded at shit. It was really impossible to feel any kind of emotion because every time you saw that green bunch of silly puddy bounce around the screen you were instanteously "taken out of the movie". The poor quality of the CGI completely ruined whatever effect the director tried to accomplish.
Here on slashdot we oftentimes like to point to the extras on DVDs as a model for the RIAA to follow in terms of adding value to their product. But the more of these extras I watch, the more I'm really doubting whether they add any value. Most of these extras are simply interviews with the cast and crew gushing over what a great job they've done and how thankful they are to work with such a talented group of individuals and so on. It's really just a bunch of self-serving, back-slapping crap. The 'deleted scenes' featured on many disks are really awful to watch -- there's no wonder they were deleted! In times I've come away from a movie having a lower opinion of the film after watching these extras. Attack of the Clones is a prime example. Now, I certainly wasn't under the impression that this was some kind of masterpiece originally. But after watching the featurettes where Lucas agonizes over minute, insignificant details of the CGI characters yet doesn't seem to give a shit about the awful acting and gaping plot holes, I found myself feeling more negative about the film!
CGI has its place but it's clear that Hulk suffered tremendously because clearly the technology isn't there yet. And filmakers, make those DVD extras something worthwhile for a change, please.
I don't care about "The Top 10 Best Dressed Videogame Characters".
I agree. I'd be much more interested in a show about "The Top 10 Most Undressed Videogame Characters"! I hereby nominate those volleyball girls and that Mai Shiruna chick from the "boobs don't bounce in American version anymore" story of a few days back.
... is to forget about the gizmos and just take a crash course in learning the language. But taking a class can be expensive and boring. That's why you want to spend time watching hentai instead. Most of them have handy subtitles on the screen so you can match the words with what's being said. You'll learn all sorts of handy Japanese phrases that will help you in everyday life such as:
"I want to have sex!"
"So good! So good!"
"Hey, get that tentacle out of there!"
and so on. Trust me, a few hours spent boning-up, I mean, studying-up on the Japanese language using these video materials and you'll impress everyone you meet!
There have been what? 4 or 5 sequels out this year? Where is the origionality at?
So you're saying that years in which there are fewer sequels feature more original movies? You must be joking. Every year Hollywood puts out films that are copies of previous films. They change the names, of course, but most films follow the same tired old formula.
If anything, sequels provide the opportunity (I'm not saying they always succeed) to do something different from the first film for the simple fact that a lot of the character development has already been completed. Not to mention there is a built-in audience so they could (again I'm not saying they always do) try something a little more radical. The Empire Strikes Back was very little like Star Wars. Even The Matrix Reloaded wasn't very similar to the original Matrix, although some would argue that the sequel was a step in the wrong direction.
Bottom line: if you want to see something original, then look for movies by new directors or new countries (check out some of the movies coming out of India if you want something radically different). Complaining about Hollywood showing too many sequels is rediculous. Even if there is ever a summer with NO sequels, I doubt the films will be any more original than any other year.
If I am in Region 1 and want one of the many Region 2 DVD's (that will never come out in Region 1), I have to get a hacked DVD player, or get a pirated/cracked version of the CD.
Actually, there are lists of software hacks that you can find on the internet to help with that. Of course, this doesn't really help most grandmas who expect something to work without punching in the first 6 digits of pi into their remote control keypad.
Oddly enough I had to use one of these hacks recently to view a Region 1 DVD on my Region 1 DVD player. When I tried to play the disk I got some kind of screen telling me that I needed a Region 1 player. I've never had that happen before. I tried inserting and removing the disk and even turning off the machine but got the same error each time. Finally I resorted to the software hack on that webpage for my machine and was able to watch the movie I rented. Boy would I have been upset if I had to go back to the videostore in the rain and exchange the disk.
However, seeing as how the disk was 'XXX' (with Vin Diesel) I probably would have been better off if I hadn't been able to watch it:)
Chances are probably not as bad as you might think. Two non-fugly math girls, lonely for a little love yet repulsed by the animate male lumps of lard and sweat surrounding them. Both so lonely, so sad. Trying to concentrate on their work. Young student huddled close together with advisor, going over a math problem. Then it happens! Zhou's hair brushes ever so lightly against Oxenheilm's cheek. They pull back from each other in surprise. They both felt it. And in that moment, their lives changed forever. It was unavoidable. It was their destiny. Their professional composure decays exponentially fast as they both realize the inexorable truth. They are going to have sex and there is nothing either of them can do to stop it. Is this attraction stable? Does it matter anymore?
Clothes are pulled off each other in an optimal fashion. Each woman studies the continuous curvature of the other's body. Fingers trace the inflexion points, the saddle points, the contours, and then, utimately, the poles. Their fingers now slick with the complex residue of the other, their heart beats begin to constructively interfere with each other. The intensity of one heart increased by the feedback from the other. So wrong. So dangerous. So good.
Groups give way to gropes. Rings give way to rimjobs. Fields give way to fondles. Their fingers, so skilled at manipulating mathematical equations, now find a use in manipulating each other's boundary layers. Both women writhe and squirm in unison until they are epsilon away from a mutual orgasm (epsilon -> 0 quadratically fast).
And then it's over. No more theorems, lemmas, corrolaries or proofs. The two young women lie on the floor knowing that their relationship has changed forever. Without a word they clothe themselves and the impressionable young student leaves the office. Never again will they discuss this incident. This will be an isolated singularity hidden for all time in the vast infiniteness of time.
Did you read the article that was linked to? Zhou's public comments are an attempt to distance herself from Oxenhielm. Oxenhielm thanks Zhou in her (possibly flawed) paper for assistance and Zhou is terrified that the community is going to laugh at her (Zhou). It's easy to forgive a youngster for getting excited and making mistakes but they would come down very hard on Zhou for letting stuff like this slip through. Effectively Oxenhielm has put Zhou's name on this work in spite of the fact that Zhou never reviewed it. You wouldn't want to be blamed for something you had no hand in, would you?
Oxenhielm is probably too young to remember what happened to Ponds and Fleishman at University of Utah regarding cold fusion. Zhou wants to make sure that Oxenhielm doesn't take her down too when her proof gets shot down.
I felt that the pacing was a bit slow in spots. I mean let's face it, the entire earth is being bombarded with nukes, everyone you ever knew is being turned into ions, and for the most part people seem to be placidly going on about their way, and the cameras aren't really focused on any of _that_.
Yes, the entire destruction of the colonies was glossed over pretty quickly. I thought that was very, very bizarre. I mean one of the basic rules of filmmaking (we're talking Film 101 here) is "Show, don't tell". Showing the destruction of cities and the terrified crowds fleeing would have added much in the way of drama. Instead we simply get pictures of mushroom clouds off in the distance and a moderate-sized mob wanting to be lifted off the planet. The only two explanations I can think of are: (a) trying to save money, (b) trying not to remind people of 9/11. Whatever the reason, the omission of the destruction of mankind seemed awfully wierd.
Hmmm, I think you're being pretty generous there. I thought she was wretched. Of course, I thought that before I saw the first episode so she would have had to have done something pretty spectacular to change my mind.
I'll cite my previous comments on her (one and two) and add to them now that I've seen the two shows. As stated in #1, I really object to this idea that a strong woman has to be "in your face". I know plenty of very capable, strong, impressive young women who don't walk around with a huge chip on their shoulder, hoping to pick a fight with someone. I have yet to see someone who I consider to be truly a strong individual who feels some need to yell all the time or put down their superiors. The XO gives Starbuck a hard time over cards and rather than letting it pass, she goads him into a fight where she throws the first punch. What kind of discipline is that? Starbuck's old Viper suffers three aborted launches before she gets a good one. Instead of trying to collect her thoughts, she starts screaming at the already harrassed tech crew who are just as anxious to get her into the fight as she is. At the end of the movie, the XO comes to her quarters and offers her an olive branch. In spite of the fact that the human race has now been reduced to a mere 50,000 people, Starbuck still cannot let her hatred of this guy go. Instead of realizing that life has changed drastically, she takes the opportunity to humilitate him to his face. How does that serve the greater good?
Starbuck really is an awful character. She may have some flying talent but I would sure not want to serve with her -- or have her be my superior officer. You can laugh at the old Star Trek but honestly I would feel very comfortable taking orders from any of the bridge crew. Same with ST:TNG. Shows like Galactica and ST:Voyager and Enterprise offer us officers who seem to be horribly flawed human beings. I would never want to have to trust those people with my life. And it makes me very hard to care about the story when most of the characters have poor character.
Usually I don't respond to obvious trolls like this but people are modding him up for some reason.
You are doing a disservice your orginization by automatically writing off all 20-somethings as lacking excelent coding skills. Just because you were out playing football and drinking beer in your late teens and weren't working on commercial software products to pay your way through college doesn't mean all 20-somethings don't have years of experience and the ability to write and even design highly complex projects with high quality levels.
This AC accuses me of writing off a group of individuals I don't know and then write me off in the same manner (playing football and drinking beer). Mods, what is Insightful about this?
And I didn't have to pay my way through college because I got an all-expenses paid fellowship as an undergrad and had my doctoral research fully funded by a national lab.
In fact, some of the best software engineers I know are in their mid 20s, and some of the worst I know are over 30.
Ah, but how many of those great 20-something software engineers got worse with experience? Probably not too many.
Interview the candidates and judge them on their skills instead of basing your hiring decision on your age prejudices.
I simply do not have the time to get everyone who submits a resume an interview. Resumes are used as a bulk filter. If something doesn't seem right to me, I'll just throw the resume away. Yes, that might mean that we miss out on super-geniuses like you but I think it's a reasonable policy when dealing with large numbers.
Half the reason the job market is so bad right is because people like you don't give new guys a chance.
I give new guys a chance if they know where they are in their professional career. If someone straight out of school stresses that they are young and excited about work and they have a working knowledge of several programming languages, I'm interested in hearing more. If they claim are an expert in 10 programming languages, then (most likely) they do not know what they are talking about. And I still disagree with your choice to upgrade HTML to a programming language. It is a description/markup language. You don't "run" an HTML page.
Learn by doing. Do by working. Embelished resumes are a fact of life.
As I said before, I work for a defense contractor. If we 'embellish' our work/results/products, people die. I am not interested in individuals who tell 'little white lies' in order to get hired. Let them work for Microsoft or something.
You got volunteered, huh? That sucks. Listen, this might sound like an easy/stupid job but you'd better put at least a little thought into making sure you don't screw up. I like to think I'm a fun-lovin' and sometime outrageous guy but I hold myself in check at office parties. You never know when you're going to do something that will give your co-workers a bad impression of you that will last for years. You haven't told us anything about the type of people who are working at this company except that it's a mix of geeks and non-geeks. If I were you, I'd play it safe and try to find out what games were played at previous holiday parties. Whatever you do make the games very non-threatening. No Twister or crap like that. Even if you think your co-workers would be cool with that, you never know when one of the prudish spouses of an employee will object and sour the party (or cause the couple to get into an arguement). The 'holiday spirit' (some people happy as can be, others depressed, and still others stressed out) and more traditional spirits (alcohol) can make a party unpredictable.
Honestly, I don't know where to start. I just wanna warn you that you better take the responsibility at least a little seriously.
Good luck. It's one thing to volunteer yourself to run a party. It's another thing to be volunteered. This person who nominated you doesn't have something against you, do they? This might be their attempt to get you to fail miserably in front of the entire office.
No, but it's a meta-language, and they usually don't include a space to include the meta-languages you are proficient in.
I'm talking about resumes so there are no "spaces" to fill out.
It's easier (arguably safer) to just throw "HTML" in with C, C++, etc, and take a chance on having a nit-picker down you for it...
I'd be really wary of hiring a program who displays this kind of "what I wrote wasn't exact but you know what I mean" attitude. IMHO the best programs ARE nit-pickers. I'd be much more impressed by someone who listed "programming languages" and then "markup languages" as seperate entites. And if you have to fill out a form doesn't make a distinction, then you should call it out in your resume.
Anyhow, the point I think you are making is well taken. Applicants don't know whether their resume is going to be read my an HR drone or a "nit-picker" like myself. What I really object to is some little snot-nosed kid trying to snow me with buzzwords. If I get the sense that the applicant is trying to do that, I'll just throw his resume away. Why should I hire someone who I'm not sure I believe?
I grow weary of seeing lots of young 20-something applicants fresh out of school who claim they have excellent coding skills and then proceed to list about ten different languages including HTML. First, HTML is not a programming language. Secondly, it takes years to learn how to program WELL in a complex language like C++. You may know the basic syntax for ten different languages, but that doesn't mean you're an expert programmer in all. And I'd argue that if you think listing tons of languages makes you look impressive, I would argue you're not much of a programmer at all (unless you've been working for decades).
Another applicant wrote in his cover letter than his goal was to get a Nobel prize. We are a defense contractor. They don't give out Nobel prizes for "Most Novel New Method to Kill People". Besides, this guy had a GPA of less than 3.5. Better get cracking if you want that Nobel prize, pal.
Space Invaders is an old, old game and definitely looks it. I'm sure their target demographic are the people who grew up playing this and want to relieve a little bit of nostalgia for old times sake. And those of us old enough to be in this demographic are certainly not hurting for money so 50c is pretty much the same as 25c to us. I'm not going to squabble over a few cents, for chrissake. We just want to relive how we felt in the days when we played videogames in arcades, listened to Journey and got raging hardons everytime Jodi Jackson walked by our desk in 8th grade algebra class. If I gotta pay 50c for that experience, big fuckin' deal! Besides, it's not like we're going to play it over and over all night long. We'll just play it once or twice, laugh, and then get back to drinking with our friends. 50c is a big increase over 25c to kids but I'm sure they wouldn't really be interested in Space Invaders anyhow. They'd probably just laugh at the graphics and repetitive sound effects and say "That's something my dad would have played!" -- and they'd be right!
As for Qix, I'm simply direct you to my earlier post. That game really rocked. Big time.
Not to mention "bundle of trouble" popping up highly on my oh-crap-o-meter for plucky obnoxious characters.
She's not acting. She really is obnoxious is real life. Last night on the 'making of' show, our first introduction to her was while she was driving (camera aimed so that we were actually "beneath her" and she didn't have to look at us -- interesting filming choice) she says "I'm so-and-so, the new Starbuck. Deal with it."
I really can't think of a more effective way of saying "fuck you" to all the fans of the original. Obnoxious does not even begin to describe this woman last night. Most people, knowing they were courting controvery, would attempt to smooth things over in their first meeting with fans. Not this one. She's "in your face" and proud of it. Good lord.
Last night the producer (Roland Moore, from ST:TNG fame) actually admitted that the one of the motivations for making the cylons humanoid was to save on production costs. He then went into detail about how the old cylon costumes were difficult to move around in and how modern-day viewers wouldn't tolerate tin-can aliens and demanded something more believable and sophisticated (like a Maxim model, I guess).
You know what alien was cool? The Gorn. With a laughable budget the original Star Trek pitted Kirk against a hand-to-hand battle against some guy in a full-body reptile suit as the two of them ran around in the desert. And as we watched these two drastically different starship captains face off against each other the writers dropped the bomb on us: this hidious inhuman monster might actually be "In The Right" from a moral standpoint. Holy crap! You gotta admire the balls of that show. Nowdays you can't have a 'good' alien without making sure they are at least somewhat attractive to human eyes.
It's kinda sad that as time marches on and our species is presumably becoming more wise that our sci-fi is being increasingly xenophopic.
First off the "cylons" are still the red eye robots. there happens to be an addition of stealth cylons that look exactly like us.
I guess we'll have to take your word for this since last night on the 'making of' show we didn't get one damn good look at the new cylons. Not one. They instead treated us to a Maxim photoshoot of the new fembot cylon. I think you can see where many of us are getting the impression that the red-eye cylons aren't going to be the major part of this show. That, and the fact that Roland Moore came right out and admitted last night that one of the reasons for using humanoid cylons was to cut production costs. My jaw dropped when he said that. I couldn't believe he would admit that.
and It's not anything you make it out to be. there are a few minor changes that really dont screw up anything but really enhance it more.
From last night it seemed like pretty much every character is completely different now. Adama no longer has the entire respect of every single individual. Starbuck is no longer a lovable, joking womanizer, she's a woman with a huge chip on her shoulder. Apollo seems to be suffering from the death of his brother and blames dad. Baltar is not the evil person from the original, he's just a confused computer geek. Now there is a President that Adama has to answer to, etc. I'm not sure where you are getting this "minor changes" stuff from. Of course, you claim to have seen the first two episodes so maybe you're right.
The story line is pretty damn close to the origional and the effects are awesome.
I have no doubt the effects are an improvement over the original. But remember that great effects do not a great sci-fi series make. It's the people, and now the people are completely different. Time will tell whether this new series is really an "enhancement" as you claim or simply a bastardization.
Looks sex-addled, low-action, and pretty scanty on the mythology. "Cylon Fembots" is all we need to know.
I was a bit surprised when I saw how much sex stuff was going to be in this new show. I know that Star Trek has gone this way (7 of 9, T'Pol) but the guy doing BG is Roland Moore and between him and Braga (the other ST:TNG writer) I always figured that Moore was the one who didn't feel the need to use sex as a way to sell an inferior product. I guess I was wrong. Of course then they try to head off the criticism that the new show is sexist by making Starbuck and Boomer women. Yet the people on the 'making of' show last night clearly indicated that Starbuck and Boomer were going to be in sexual situations as well (sexual tension but no action in Starbuck's case).
The mythology was pretty much all that made it distinctive, such as it was, in the original case.
You're probably already aware of this but just in case not: the story of the original is based very heavily on the story of the Mormons trying to find a place to settle. Obviously, most Hollywood types are Mormons so they were completely unaware of this. For them, and the vast majority of the American public, the story was a brand new idea. In reality, the backbone story was already done. All the writers had to do was take an obscure, yet interesting, story and flesh it out a bit and transfer it to the stars.
Its an entirely different animal, it is in fact so different that I suspect that the only reason its title is BSG is to get the built in audience...
You hit the nail right on the head there. See, it's risky for a movie or TV studio to put up the cash for a brand new show. They don't know if anyone is going to watch it or not. Doesn't matter how good it is. It's much easier to simply co-opt an existing brand name and slap it on your product. That way, you're guaranteed that some people are going to watch the first couple of episodes of your show, regardless of whether it's any good or not.
Perhaps the most striking example of this in recent years was Hollywood's remake of Godzilla. The Japanese Godzilla that we all know and love was a real force of nature -- with a twist. It was an unpredictable and unstoppable as a hurricane but with the added sting of knowing that mankind was responsible for its creation. The Hollywood version turned the once-mighty creature into a powerless wimp who scampered away like a frightened kitten in the face of helicopter gunships. Thus, you never really felt like the world was in danger. Every time Godzilla popped up you could chase him away with helicopters or tanks. Of course you can't keep doing that forever but I think we can all agree that eventually they would have found where he was hiding and finished him off. So the writers tried to make him a threat by having him spontaneously produce offspring. So instead of having a large, scary, unstoppable force bearing down on you, this new Godzilla was little more than a glorified bacterium, reproducing rapidly. Not very scary and not at all faithful to the original. In fact, other than the fact that both monsters were created as a result of nuclear testing, there was nothing about this new monster which indicated that it was Godzilla. You could hear kids in the audience tugging on their parents sleves asking "Why is Godzilla running away?" It was clear that Devlin and Emmerich (the writer/producer/director team) had just made up their own monster and story and slapped the brand name of Godzilla on the front to move more product (be it movie tickets or associated toys).
There's a balance that needs to be struck when doing a new version of a beloved classic. You don't want a shot-by-shot remake like Point of No Return (La Femme Nikita) or Gus Van Saint's Psycho. On the other hand, it does the original a disservice to completely throw everything out the window and start from scratch. I watched the "Behind the scenes" special on BG last night and Roland Moore came right out and said that the only thing they were planning on keeping from the original was the Viper shape. Stuff like making the cylons humanoid and the womanizing, but likeable, Starbuck into a bitchy woman is going way, way too far.
Before someone flames me for calling the new Starbuck a bitch, I want to make it clear that I have nothing whatsoever against women as action heros. Quite frankly I think it's a long time in coming. But if you had seen the show last night, I think you would have to agree that this new actress is trying way, way too hard to be 'tough'. Jean-Luc Picard was tough and he didn't feel the need to mouth off to people constantly. He was respectable and everyone knew it. True strength simply radiates from people -- there's no need to constantly shout out your superiority to everyone. It just doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Other scientists are lobbying for increased virtual conferencing.
I would have preferred that the scientists lobby for increased funding in virtual conferencing technlogies instead. I have yet to be part of a videoconference that could hold a candle to face-to-face meetings. No, I don't work in sales: I'm a scientist. I just feel that you lose an awful lot when you try to replace a meeting with a virtual one. A lot of the excited interchange that occurs in a face-to-face meething becomes a jumbled "who said that?" or "wait, did someone say something?" puzzle. I think the idea of virtual conferencing is a nice idea but still needs a lot more work before we can expect widespread adoption from scientists or businessmen. And that requires money.
The rewards of a well-developed virtual conferencing technology would go far beyond environmental concerns. By not having to spend so much time enroute to the destination (or back to your home), standing in airports, etc., people could gain back some of those "lost hours" that invariable occur during business travel. Not to mention it would save a lot of us the stress and hastle of breaking up our normal routine and enduring the growing hell of airport quagmire.
GMD
Paul Allen likes to spend his money on more "visionary" pursuits, trying to further push the technology envelope, but Gates has certainly thrown plenty of money to good causes in his own right.
There are lots of ways to look at how Gates and Allen spend their money. You pointed out one distinction. However, I'd like to go a little deeper into that and ask why.
Here's my theory: Gates has convinced himself that he's a genius. That he's smarter than almost everyone. He feels that he's the elite. This explains his attempts to so fully dominate and control the future of computing. He certainly doesn't need the money. He's doing it because he honestly feels that he knows better than anyone else how computing should evolve.
But he's not entirely heartless. He sees the poor unfortunate masses who aren't as great as he is and feels like he should give them a few bucks. Kind of like royalty flinging coins out the windows of their buggies and at the miserable wretches in the crowd as they roll down the common street. It makes him feel good about himself and, quite frankly, those who are lucky enough to catch those coins he chucks out the window really do need the money so they are grateful.
Allen, on the other hand, has a much more modest view of his place in the world. Unlike Gates, he does not believe that he's one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived. He can fully appreciate the fact that there are scores of other people out there with great ideas. Since he has the money, he funds their work in the hopes that they will be able to develop their ideas into fantastic technologies that advance the human race.
There's no right or wrong here. Both are doing what they feel is best.
GMD
I agree that Kill Bill was good. The fact that they didn't use any CGI made it significantly better, IMHO. Does anybody else feel like they're overdoing it with computer graphics in some movies??? Maybe I've just seen so many well done CGI scenes that the majority of computer aided action shots just seem lame to me.....
I'm a bit puzzled that you seem to be extolling the virtues of a wire-fu flick as a pinnacle of realism. It's been a damn long time since I've seen a believable martial arts film. The wire-fu stuff is getting as overused as CGI. Seriously, if you're in a fight you don't do 10 meter backflips over your opponents. Actually, I'm not sure anyone can do flips like that regardless of whether it makes good tactical sense or not. Yes, I'm aware the capoirera contains lots of flips and cartwheel-like motions but a lot of that is built into that particular martial art because it was developed by slaves who had to disguise their practice as a dance to avoid their masters cracking down on them.
When you do a flip you are basically expending a considerable amount of effort and energy to perform a complex maneuver that temporarily blinds you, leaves you vulnerable to your opponent, and doesn't really move your center of mass very far in the horizontal direction. It's just not a wise idea to go flipping around like crazy when people armed with weapons are trying to kill you. Best just to stand your ground and block or take a step back (or to the side).
Sometimes I wonder whether the reliance on wire techniques is an attempt by Hollywood to show something outside the everyday experience of the moviegoer in the abscence of any talented martial artists. In decades past, audiences could be wowed by the superior skill of someone who could actually do martial arts well. These days, it seems like directors are insisting that the actors try to do the fight scenes and then they use wire-fu to make up for the fact that these people really can't do very much. You don't see any Bruce Lee or Jet Li types who can move incredibly fast. Instead you get Keanu Reeves or Uma Thurman doing a backflip over 3 opponents in slow motion. That just doesn't really impress me and it certainly doesn't count as realistic fighting. Why can't they hire some competant martial arts to do something REAL and just use CGI or maybe even masks to make the stunt person look like the actor?
Ah well, just my two cents. I'm just getting a little annoyed by everyone gushing over these acrobatic shows as "awesome martial arts flicks".
GMD
I made the mistake of renting Hulk on DVD. Well, at least that wouldn't have been as big a mistake as watching it in the theater. I was pretty stunned at how terrible the CGI was. Sure, I had seen the TV commericals but I naively figured that those commericals had been thrown together before the complete rendering had been completed and that the CGI in the final product would be much better than the trailers. Nope. I was really surprised.
But in watching the DVD extras my surprise turned to bewilderment and a little anger. While there was an entertaining featurette on the history of The Hulk from early comic books to TV to movies, most of the extras consisted of the movie makers going on and on about how incredible their CGI effects were and how they were doing something at a level of realism that no one else had ever tried. Now, I'll accept that perhaps what they had tried to do might have been quite ambitious but to suggest that they succeeded admirably was just too much to take. Quite frankly, I don't care how difficult the CGI technical problems are. If some average moviegoer like myself cringes at the poor quality of the effects, then you haven't succeeded at shit. It was really impossible to feel any kind of emotion because every time you saw that green bunch of silly puddy bounce around the screen you were instanteously "taken out of the movie". The poor quality of the CGI completely ruined whatever effect the director tried to accomplish.
Here on slashdot we oftentimes like to point to the extras on DVDs as a model for the RIAA to follow in terms of adding value to their product. But the more of these extras I watch, the more I'm really doubting whether they add any value. Most of these extras are simply interviews with the cast and crew gushing over what a great job they've done and how thankful they are to work with such a talented group of individuals and so on. It's really just a bunch of self-serving, back-slapping crap. The 'deleted scenes' featured on many disks are really awful to watch -- there's no wonder they were deleted! In times I've come away from a movie having a lower opinion of the film after watching these extras. Attack of the Clones is a prime example. Now, I certainly wasn't under the impression that this was some kind of masterpiece originally. But after watching the featurettes where Lucas agonizes over minute, insignificant details of the CGI characters yet doesn't seem to give a shit about the awful acting and gaping plot holes, I found myself feeling more negative about the film!
CGI has its place but it's clear that Hulk suffered tremendously because clearly the technology isn't there yet. And filmakers, make those DVD extras something worthwhile for a change, please.
GMD
I don't care about "The Top 10 Best Dressed Videogame Characters".
I agree. I'd be much more interested in a show about "The Top 10 Most Undressed Videogame Characters"! I hereby nominate those volleyball girls and that Mai Shiruna chick from the "boobs don't bounce in American version anymore" story of a few days back.
GMD
... is to forget about the gizmos and just take a crash course in learning the language. But taking a class can be expensive and boring. That's why you want to spend time watching hentai instead. Most of them have handy subtitles on the screen so you can match the words with what's being said. You'll learn all sorts of handy Japanese phrases that will help you in everyday life such as:
and so on. Trust me, a few hours spent boning-up, I mean, studying-up on the Japanese language using these video materials and you'll impress everyone you meet!
Hope this helps,
GMD
There have been what? 4 or 5 sequels out this year? Where is the origionality at?
So you're saying that years in which there are fewer sequels feature more original movies? You must be joking. Every year Hollywood puts out films that are copies of previous films. They change the names, of course, but most films follow the same tired old formula.
If anything, sequels provide the opportunity (I'm not saying they always succeed) to do something different from the first film for the simple fact that a lot of the character development has already been completed. Not to mention there is a built-in audience so they could (again I'm not saying they always do) try something a little more radical. The Empire Strikes Back was very little like Star Wars. Even The Matrix Reloaded wasn't very similar to the original Matrix, although some would argue that the sequel was a step in the wrong direction.
Bottom line: if you want to see something original, then look for movies by new directors or new countries (check out some of the movies coming out of India if you want something radically different). Complaining about Hollywood showing too many sequels is rediculous. Even if there is ever a summer with NO sequels, I doubt the films will be any more original than any other year.
GMD
If I am in Region 1 and want one of the many Region 2 DVD's (that will never come out in Region 1), I have to get a hacked DVD player, or get a pirated/cracked version of the CD.
Actually, there are lists of software hacks that you can find on the internet to help with that. Of course, this doesn't really help most grandmas who expect something to work without punching in the first 6 digits of pi into their remote control keypad.
Oddly enough I had to use one of these hacks recently to view a Region 1 DVD on my Region 1 DVD player. When I tried to play the disk I got some kind of screen telling me that I needed a Region 1 player. I've never had that happen before. I tried inserting and removing the disk and even turning off the machine but got the same error each time. Finally I resorted to the software hack on that webpage for my machine and was able to watch the movie I rented. Boy would I have been upset if I had to go back to the videostore in the rain and exchange the disk.
However, seeing as how the disk was 'XXX' (with Vin Diesel) I probably would have been better off if I hadn't been able to watch it :)
GMD
Two non-fugly math chicks! What are the chances?
Chances are probably not as bad as you might think. Two non-fugly math girls, lonely for a little love yet repulsed by the animate male lumps of lard and sweat surrounding them. Both so lonely, so sad. Trying to concentrate on their work. Young student huddled close together with advisor, going over a math problem. Then it happens! Zhou's hair brushes ever so lightly against Oxenheilm's cheek. They pull back from each other in surprise. They both felt it. And in that moment, their lives changed forever. It was unavoidable. It was their destiny. Their professional composure decays exponentially fast as they both realize the inexorable truth. They are going to have sex and there is nothing either of them can do to stop it. Is this attraction stable? Does it matter anymore?
Clothes are pulled off each other in an optimal fashion. Each woman studies the continuous curvature of the other's body. Fingers trace the inflexion points, the saddle points, the contours, and then, utimately, the poles. Their fingers now slick with the complex residue of the other, their heart beats begin to constructively interfere with each other. The intensity of one heart increased by the feedback from the other. So wrong. So dangerous. So good.
Groups give way to gropes. Rings give way to rimjobs. Fields give way to fondles. Their fingers, so skilled at manipulating mathematical equations, now find a use in manipulating each other's boundary layers. Both women writhe and squirm in unison until they are epsilon away from a mutual orgasm (epsilon -> 0 quadratically fast).
And then it's over. No more theorems, lemmas, corrolaries or proofs. The two young women lie on the floor knowing that their relationship has changed forever. Without a word they clothe themselves and the impressionable young student leaves the office. Never again will they discuss this incident. This will be an isolated singularity hidden for all time in the vast infiniteness of time.
GMD
Did you read the article that was linked to? Zhou's public comments are an attempt to distance herself from Oxenhielm. Oxenhielm thanks Zhou in her (possibly flawed) paper for assistance and Zhou is terrified that the community is going to laugh at her (Zhou). It's easy to forgive a youngster for getting excited and making mistakes but they would come down very hard on Zhou for letting stuff like this slip through. Effectively Oxenhielm has put Zhou's name on this work in spite of the fact that Zhou never reviewed it. You wouldn't want to be blamed for something you had no hand in, would you?
Oxenhielm is probably too young to remember what happened to Ponds and Fleishman at University of Utah regarding cold fusion. Zhou wants to make sure that Oxenhielm doesn't take her down too when her proof gets shot down.
GMD
I felt that the pacing was a bit slow in spots. I mean let's face it, the entire earth is being bombarded with nukes, everyone you ever knew is being turned into ions, and for the most part people seem to be placidly going on about their way, and the cameras aren't really focused on any of _that_.
Yes, the entire destruction of the colonies was glossed over pretty quickly. I thought that was very, very bizarre. I mean one of the basic rules of filmmaking (we're talking Film 101 here) is "Show, don't tell". Showing the destruction of cities and the terrified crowds fleeing would have added much in the way of drama. Instead we simply get pictures of mushroom clouds off in the distance and a moderate-sized mob wanting to be lifted off the planet. The only two explanations I can think of are: (a) trying to save money, (b) trying not to remind people of 9/11. Whatever the reason, the omission of the destruction of mankind seemed awfully wierd.
GMD
Starbuck had her likable moments...
Hmmm, I think you're being pretty generous there. I thought she was wretched. Of course, I thought that before I saw the first episode so she would have had to have done something pretty spectacular to change my mind.
I'll cite my previous comments on her (one and two) and add to them now that I've seen the two shows. As stated in #1, I really object to this idea that a strong woman has to be "in your face". I know plenty of very capable, strong, impressive young women who don't walk around with a huge chip on their shoulder, hoping to pick a fight with someone. I have yet to see someone who I consider to be truly a strong individual who feels some need to yell all the time or put down their superiors. The XO gives Starbuck a hard time over cards and rather than letting it pass, she goads him into a fight where she throws the first punch. What kind of discipline is that? Starbuck's old Viper suffers three aborted launches before she gets a good one. Instead of trying to collect her thoughts, she starts screaming at the already harrassed tech crew who are just as anxious to get her into the fight as she is. At the end of the movie, the XO comes to her quarters and offers her an olive branch. In spite of the fact that the human race has now been reduced to a mere 50,000 people, Starbuck still cannot let her hatred of this guy go. Instead of realizing that life has changed drastically, she takes the opportunity to humilitate him to his face. How does that serve the greater good?
Starbuck really is an awful character. She may have some flying talent but I would sure not want to serve with her -- or have her be my superior officer. You can laugh at the old Star Trek but honestly I would feel very comfortable taking orders from any of the bridge crew. Same with ST:TNG. Shows like Galactica and ST:Voyager and Enterprise offer us officers who seem to be horribly flawed human beings. I would never want to have to trust those people with my life. And it makes me very hard to care about the story when most of the characters have poor character.
GMD
Usually I don't respond to obvious trolls like this but people are modding him up for some reason.
You are doing a disservice your orginization by automatically writing off all 20-somethings as lacking excelent coding skills. Just because you were out playing football and drinking beer in your late teens and weren't working on commercial software products to pay your way through college doesn't mean all 20-somethings don't have years of experience and the ability to write and even design highly complex projects with high quality levels.
This AC accuses me of writing off a group of individuals I don't know and then write me off in the same manner (playing football and drinking beer). Mods, what is Insightful about this?
And I didn't have to pay my way through college because I got an all-expenses paid fellowship as an undergrad and had my doctoral research fully funded by a national lab.
In fact, some of the best software engineers I know are in their mid 20s, and some of the worst I know are over 30.
Ah, but how many of those great 20-something software engineers got worse with experience? Probably not too many.
Interview the candidates and judge them on their skills instead of basing your hiring decision on your age prejudices.
I simply do not have the time to get everyone who submits a resume an interview. Resumes are used as a bulk filter. If something doesn't seem right to me, I'll just throw the resume away. Yes, that might mean that we miss out on super-geniuses like you but I think it's a reasonable policy when dealing with large numbers.
GMD
Half the reason the job market is so bad right is because people like you don't give new guys a chance.
I give new guys a chance if they know where they are in their professional career. If someone straight out of school stresses that they are young and excited about work and they have a working knowledge of several programming languages, I'm interested in hearing more. If they claim are an expert in 10 programming languages, then (most likely) they do not know what they are talking about. And I still disagree with your choice to upgrade HTML to a programming language. It is a description/markup language. You don't "run" an HTML page.
Learn by doing. Do by working. Embelished resumes are a fact of life.
As I said before, I work for a defense contractor. If we 'embellish' our work/results/products, people die. I am not interested in individuals who tell 'little white lies' in order to get hired. Let them work for Microsoft or something.
GMD
You got volunteered, huh? That sucks. Listen, this might sound like an easy/stupid job but you'd better put at least a little thought into making sure you don't screw up. I like to think I'm a fun-lovin' and sometime outrageous guy but I hold myself in check at office parties. You never know when you're going to do something that will give your co-workers a bad impression of you that will last for years. You haven't told us anything about the type of people who are working at this company except that it's a mix of geeks and non-geeks. If I were you, I'd play it safe and try to find out what games were played at previous holiday parties. Whatever you do make the games very non-threatening. No Twister or crap like that. Even if you think your co-workers would be cool with that, you never know when one of the prudish spouses of an employee will object and sour the party (or cause the couple to get into an arguement). The 'holiday spirit' (some people happy as can be, others depressed, and still others stressed out) and more traditional spirits (alcohol) can make a party unpredictable.
Honestly, I don't know where to start. I just wanna warn you that you better take the responsibility at least a little seriously.
Good luck. It's one thing to volunteer yourself to run a party. It's another thing to be volunteered. This person who nominated you doesn't have something against you, do they? This might be their attempt to get you to fail miserably in front of the entire office.
GMD
No, but it's a meta-language, and they usually don't include a space to include the meta-languages you are proficient in.
I'm talking about resumes so there are no "spaces" to fill out.
It's easier (arguably safer) to just throw "HTML" in with C, C++, etc, and take a chance on having a nit-picker down you for it...
I'd be really wary of hiring a program who displays this kind of "what I wrote wasn't exact but you know what I mean" attitude. IMHO the best programs ARE nit-pickers. I'd be much more impressed by someone who listed "programming languages" and then "markup languages" as seperate entites. And if you have to fill out a form doesn't make a distinction, then you should call it out in your resume.
Anyhow, the point I think you are making is well taken. Applicants don't know whether their resume is going to be read my an HR drone or a "nit-picker" like myself. What I really object to is some little snot-nosed kid trying to snow me with buzzwords. If I get the sense that the applicant is trying to do that, I'll just throw his resume away. Why should I hire someone who I'm not sure I believe?
GMD
I grow weary of seeing lots of young 20-something applicants fresh out of school who claim they have excellent coding skills and then proceed to list about ten different languages including HTML. First, HTML is not a programming language. Secondly, it takes years to learn how to program WELL in a complex language like C++. You may know the basic syntax for ten different languages, but that doesn't mean you're an expert programmer in all. And I'd argue that if you think listing tons of languages makes you look impressive, I would argue you're not much of a programmer at all (unless you've been working for decades).
Another applicant wrote in his cover letter than his goal was to get a Nobel prize. We are a defense contractor. They don't give out Nobel prizes for "Most Novel New Method to Kill People". Besides, this guy had a GPA of less than 3.5. Better get cracking if you want that Nobel prize, pal.
GMD
No big loss, let me assure you. Just go the video store and rent "The Hot Spot" or "Career Opportunities" instead.
I'm assuming the biggest reason anyone would want to watch Hulk would be for Jennifer Connolly (or maybe I should say biggest reasons ).
GMD
Space Invaders is an old, old game and definitely looks it. I'm sure their target demographic are the people who grew up playing this and want to relieve a little bit of nostalgia for old times sake. And those of us old enough to be in this demographic are certainly not hurting for money so 50c is pretty much the same as 25c to us. I'm not going to squabble over a few cents, for chrissake. We just want to relive how we felt in the days when we played videogames in arcades, listened to Journey and got raging hardons everytime Jodi Jackson walked by our desk in 8th grade algebra class. If I gotta pay 50c for that experience, big fuckin' deal! Besides, it's not like we're going to play it over and over all night long. We'll just play it once or twice, laugh, and then get back to drinking with our friends. 50c is a big increase over 25c to kids but I'm sure they wouldn't really be interested in Space Invaders anyhow. They'd probably just laugh at the graphics and repetitive sound effects and say "That's something my dad would have played!" -- and they'd be right!
As for Qix, I'm simply direct you to my earlier post. That game really rocked. Big time.
GMD
It's standing in a room, waiting to be revealed by a group of groping teammates.
Honestly, I don't really want to picture a bunch of geeks 'groping' around trying to 'reveal' something.
GMD
Not to mention "bundle of trouble" popping up highly on my oh-crap-o-meter for plucky obnoxious characters.
She's not acting. She really is obnoxious is real life. Last night on the 'making of' show, our first introduction to her was while she was driving (camera aimed so that we were actually "beneath her" and she didn't have to look at us -- interesting filming choice) she says "I'm so-and-so, the new Starbuck. Deal with it."
I really can't think of a more effective way of saying "fuck you" to all the fans of the original. Obnoxious does not even begin to describe this woman last night. Most people, knowing they were courting controvery, would attempt to smooth things over in their first meeting with fans. Not this one. She's "in your face" and proud of it. Good lord.
GMD
Last night the producer (Roland Moore, from ST:TNG fame) actually admitted that the one of the motivations for making the cylons humanoid was to save on production costs. He then went into detail about how the old cylon costumes were difficult to move around in and how modern-day viewers wouldn't tolerate tin-can aliens and demanded something more believable and sophisticated (like a Maxim model, I guess).
You know what alien was cool? The Gorn. With a laughable budget the original Star Trek pitted Kirk against a hand-to-hand battle against some guy in a full-body reptile suit as the two of them ran around in the desert. And as we watched these two drastically different starship captains face off against each other the writers dropped the bomb on us: this hidious inhuman monster might actually be "In The Right" from a moral standpoint. Holy crap! You gotta admire the balls of that show. Nowdays you can't have a 'good' alien without making sure they are at least somewhat attractive to human eyes.
It's kinda sad that as time marches on and our species is presumably becoming more wise that our sci-fi is being increasingly xenophopic.
GMD
First off the "cylons" are still the red eye robots. there happens to be an addition of stealth cylons that look exactly like us.
I guess we'll have to take your word for this since last night on the 'making of' show we didn't get one damn good look at the new cylons. Not one. They instead treated us to a Maxim photoshoot of the new fembot cylon. I think you can see where many of us are getting the impression that the red-eye cylons aren't going to be the major part of this show. That, and the fact that Roland Moore came right out and admitted last night that one of the reasons for using humanoid cylons was to cut production costs. My jaw dropped when he said that. I couldn't believe he would admit that.
and It's not anything you make it out to be. there are a few minor changes that really dont screw up anything but really enhance it more.
From last night it seemed like pretty much every character is completely different now. Adama no longer has the entire respect of every single individual. Starbuck is no longer a lovable, joking womanizer, she's a woman with a huge chip on her shoulder. Apollo seems to be suffering from the death of his brother and blames dad. Baltar is not the evil person from the original, he's just a confused computer geek. Now there is a President that Adama has to answer to, etc. I'm not sure where you are getting this "minor changes" stuff from. Of course, you claim to have seen the first two episodes so maybe you're right.
I'm going to have to go with the parent poster here. I actually posted the same sentiment above before I saw his comments.
The story line is pretty damn close to the origional and the effects are awesome.
I have no doubt the effects are an improvement over the original. But remember that great effects do not a great sci-fi series make. It's the people, and now the people are completely different. Time will tell whether this new series is really an "enhancement" as you claim or simply a bastardization.
GMD
Looks sex-addled, low-action, and pretty scanty on the mythology. "Cylon Fembots" is all we need to know.
I was a bit surprised when I saw how much sex stuff was going to be in this new show. I know that Star Trek has gone this way (7 of 9, T'Pol) but the guy doing BG is Roland Moore and between him and Braga (the other ST:TNG writer) I always figured that Moore was the one who didn't feel the need to use sex as a way to sell an inferior product. I guess I was wrong. Of course then they try to head off the criticism that the new show is sexist by making Starbuck and Boomer women. Yet the people on the 'making of' show last night clearly indicated that Starbuck and Boomer were going to be in sexual situations as well (sexual tension but no action in Starbuck's case).
The mythology was pretty much all that made it distinctive, such as it was, in the original case.
You're probably already aware of this but just in case not: the story of the original is based very heavily on the story of the Mormons trying to find a place to settle. Obviously, most Hollywood types are Mormons so they were completely unaware of this. For them, and the vast majority of the American public, the story was a brand new idea. In reality, the backbone story was already done. All the writers had to do was take an obscure, yet interesting, story and flesh it out a bit and transfer it to the stars.
GMD
Its an entirely different animal, it is in fact so different that I suspect that the only reason its title is BSG is to get the built in audience ...
You hit the nail right on the head there. See, it's risky for a movie or TV studio to put up the cash for a brand new show. They don't know if anyone is going to watch it or not. Doesn't matter how good it is. It's much easier to simply co-opt an existing brand name and slap it on your product. That way, you're guaranteed that some people are going to watch the first couple of episodes of your show, regardless of whether it's any good or not.
Perhaps the most striking example of this in recent years was Hollywood's remake of Godzilla. The Japanese Godzilla that we all know and love was a real force of nature -- with a twist. It was an unpredictable and unstoppable as a hurricane but with the added sting of knowing that mankind was responsible for its creation. The Hollywood version turned the once-mighty creature into a powerless wimp who scampered away like a frightened kitten in the face of helicopter gunships. Thus, you never really felt like the world was in danger. Every time Godzilla popped up you could chase him away with helicopters or tanks. Of course you can't keep doing that forever but I think we can all agree that eventually they would have found where he was hiding and finished him off. So the writers tried to make him a threat by having him spontaneously produce offspring. So instead of having a large, scary, unstoppable force bearing down on you, this new Godzilla was little more than a glorified bacterium, reproducing rapidly. Not very scary and not at all faithful to the original. In fact, other than the fact that both monsters were created as a result of nuclear testing, there was nothing about this new monster which indicated that it was Godzilla. You could hear kids in the audience tugging on their parents sleves asking "Why is Godzilla running away?" It was clear that Devlin and Emmerich (the writer/producer/director team) had just made up their own monster and story and slapped the brand name of Godzilla on the front to move more product (be it movie tickets or associated toys).
There's a balance that needs to be struck when doing a new version of a beloved classic. You don't want a shot-by-shot remake like Point of No Return (La Femme Nikita) or Gus Van Saint's Psycho. On the other hand, it does the original a disservice to completely throw everything out the window and start from scratch. I watched the "Behind the scenes" special on BG last night and Roland Moore came right out and said that the only thing they were planning on keeping from the original was the Viper shape. Stuff like making the cylons humanoid and the womanizing, but likeable, Starbuck into a bitchy woman is going way, way too far.
Before someone flames me for calling the new Starbuck a bitch, I want to make it clear that I have nothing whatsoever against women as action heros. Quite frankly I think it's a long time in coming. But if you had seen the show last night, I think you would have to agree that this new actress is trying way, way too hard to be 'tough'. Jean-Luc Picard was tough and he didn't feel the need to mouth off to people constantly. He was respectable and everyone knew it. True strength simply radiates from people -- there's no need to constantly shout out your superiority to everyone. It just doesn't work.
GMD